The Supreme Court confirms that Sabina ought to pay 2.5 million to the Treasury for copyright

The court does no longer enter into the deserves of the matter and ends the judicial adventure with the aid of confirming the sentence of the National Court

The Supreme Court has inadmissible the enchantment of the singer Joaquín Sabina against the sentence of the National Court that showed that he had to pay 2.5 million euros in taxes for non-public income tax for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in idea of copyright, transferred to own family corporations.

In an order to which Europa Press has had get admission to, the court has now not entered into the evaluation of the merits of the enchantment, since it did no longer respect a cassational hobby that warrants the pronouncement of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court.

In this sense, the magistrates have indicated that the issues raised by means of Sabina’s enchantment “must be understood as essentially resolved” inside the jurisprudence of the excessive courtroom. Against this choice there is no attraction, so the felony adventure of the artist involves an give up.

I HAD ALREADY LOST IN THE TEAC

The singer had long past to the Supreme Court with the purpose of amending the judgment of the National Court that during June 2022 sided with the Tax Agency towards Sabina’s judicial attraction, which had already unsuccessfully claimed administratively earlier than the Economic Court -Central Administrative (TEAC). The State Attorney also wanted the dismissal of the appeal.

Along with circle of relatives individuals, Sabina became a accomplice or administrator of three corporations: Ultramarinos Finos, Relatores and El Pan de Mis Niñas, with which she controlled her copyrights, real property in Madrid and Rota, a sailboat and old books, in keeping with the stock collected within the sentence, dated April 13 and consulted by means of Europa Press.

During the three years blanketed through the tax inspection, these three agencies generated more than 12 million euros in operating income: “All this income has a right away relationship with the plaintiff, both for billed services or for copyright series ( ceded by using the plaintiff to the corporation), with the expert activities wherein the intervention “of Sabina” constituted the critical and very private element of the provision of the corresponding carrier (galas, ‘royalties’, national document sales, collaborations in press, and so on.).

In her protection, Sabina argued that she had no relationship with any of these groups, although the AN magistrates cite judgments from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid that declared that argument “incredible” and determined that the singer had a tax of less than the one that corresponded to him through application of the everyday marketplace cost, “which would have determined a tax fee better than that of the Corporation Tax, and a consequent boom in profits to be attributed” to the singer by private profits tax.

The Treasury, in its liquidation to Sabina, agreed to increase the tax base of the IRPF after the singer had paid much less taxes together with his groups for the Corporation Tax.